Norris v United States of America & Ors

For extradition under Part 2 of the Extradition Act 2003, the court must examine the conduct alleged in the request, not require exact correspondence between the foreign offence and an English offence. Conduct alleged as price-fixing may constitute conspiracy to defraud where it was dishonest and intended to prejudice others. Secrecy may be evidence of dishonesty. The transposition exercise also replaces the foreign locality and institutional setting with their United Kingdom equivalents. Delay bars extradition only where its effects cause injustice or oppression. Extradition engaging Article 8 is ordinarily proportionate where it serves the legitimate aim of international criminal cooperation; only wholly exceptional circumstances will suffice. No Article 8 or Article 14 breach was established.

Mr Norris appealed against a Bow Street Magistrates’ Court decision of 1 June 2005 sending his case to the Secretary of State under section 87(3) of the Extradition Act 2003, and against the Secretary of State’s decision of 29 September 2005 ordering extradition.

The United States sought his extradition for conspiracy to fix prices and for conduct obstructing investigations and proceedings concerning that conspiracy. The central issues were whether the alleged conduct constituted extradition offences, whether delay barred extradition, and whether extradition was compatible with Articles 8 and 14 ECHR.

The appeals were dismissed. The court upheld both the District Judge’s decision and the Secretary of State’s decision to extradite.

1. Conspiracy to defraud. The relevant common law offence consists of an agreement dishonestly to prejudice another’s proprietary or economic interests. Dishonesty is the critical constituent. It may arise from secrecy intended to preserve the appearance of normal competition, although the issue remains one of fact and evaluation. The allegations against Mr Norris went beyond mere secrecy and were capable of amounting to conspiracy to defraud.
2. Statutory competition law. The Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1956, the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 and section 188 of the Enterprise Act 2002 did not exclude the common law offence. Section 5(2) of the Criminal Law Act 1977 preserved conspiracy to defraud. The later statutory cartel offence did not determine the scope of the earlier common law.
3. Double criminality. Section 137 focuses on the conduct alleged in the request and asks whether that conduct, if it had occurred in the United Kingdom, would have constituted an imprisonable offence. Exact correspondence between the ingredients of the United States offence and the English offence was unnecessary. Office of the King’s Prosecutor, Brussels v Armas [2006] 2 AC 1 supported that conduct-based approach.
4. Transposition. The court must transpose the essentials of the conduct, including the relevant local institutions, officials and procedures, while substituting the United Kingdom setting. The alleged interference with United States investigators and grand-jury proceedings was therefore capable of constituting conspiracy to pervert or perverting the course of justice here.
5. Delay. Under section 82, injustice primarily concerns trial prejudice and oppression concerns hardship caused by changes during the period of delay. The alleged prejudice and family disruption were not shown to result from the passage of time.
6. Human rights. Extradition engaged Article 8 but pursued the legitimate aim of preventing crime and giving effect to international cooperation. The circumstances did not approach the high or wholly exceptional threshold required to establish disproportionality. The Article 14 claims failed because the statutory regime applied equally to nationals found in the United Kingdom and no unjustified discrimination was shown.

• Bow Street Magistrates’ Court: on 1 June 2005, the District Judge held that the alleged conduct constituted extradition offences, that delay and human-rights objections did not bar extradition, and sent the case to the Secretary of State under section 87(3) of the Extradition Act 2003.
• Secretary of State for the Home Department: on 29 September 2005, ordered extradition.
• High Court (Administrative Court): appeals dismissed; both decisions upheld.